Environmental Paradigm of Psychology - Essay Example

Paradigm of Psychology Environmental Paradigm: The evolutionary paradigm is based upon the concept that if psychological theory is to be taken seriously, it must be consistent with evolutionary biology. Psychoanalytic psychological theory in general focuses upon an individual as being caught between nature and culture, with neuroses and psychological disturbances being the result of conflict between an individual’s natural instincts and the constraints imposed by the cultural environment. The evolutionary perspective builds upon this concept by posing the question – what is culture if not the evolution of natural tendencies of group psychology? Therefore, evolutionary theory becomes a theory of context and environment, so that the psychology of an individual is to be understood by taking into consideration the environment the individual lives in - past, present and future, as well as the changes that have occurred in this environment over a period of time. Culture is viewed as no more than the constantly changing social environment that reflects the changing perspectives of groups of individuals over time. Within the environment, organisms are competing for resources, however when employing an evolutionary perspective, it is not natural selection that determines which individuals will survive. The approach that can be employed is that certain kinds of individuals or patterns can be reproduced within a particular kind of environment. Hence, the evolutionary paradigm does not embark upon the study of an individual’s mind with any preconception about normalcy based upon what is considered to be natural, but as a factor of his or her environment, examining what factors shaped the individual’s past and present environment and what elements of the future environment are likely to shape the individual’s being, state of existence and manner of thinking. For example, in the context of the attachments that an individual has with others, Fonagy et al (2000) offer the view that attachment patterns may reflect environmental conditions, such as the low level of correlation between an infant’s attachment to its mother as opposed to its father. Montague et al (2003) examined attachment patterns and the imposition of punitive measures through withholding of attachment in both African American children and European American children, and noted while the environment of the former produced increased self reliance, the latter revealed a more negative effect of such withholding of affection, thereby indicating that changing environmental and other trends could play a role in socialization in the two cultures. Operant Conditioning Paradigm: The Operant conditioning paradigm is based upon the premise that a individual’s behavior is shaped or controlled by the consequences that accrue from it, i.e, behavior that produces unfavorable results is dispensed with or restricted while behavior that generates positive feedback is likely to be repeated. The rate of operant behavior provides an important indication of the strength of the response that is being generated in an individual (Skinner 1986). The focus of the effort in the operant conditioning paradigm is to identify stable patterns of behavior in individuals and specifically on reversible behavior, such that it is possible to determine how individuals engage in learning and the specific response patterns that are produced by certain stimuli fed to the individual. Operant conditioning generally focuses on the reverse procedure , i.e, through the use of punishment to study behavioral patterns and explain the origins of such behavior. Operant conditioning has been understood within the context of the Social learning Theory proposed by Bandura (1969), wherein an individual learns vicariously, through observing and imitating others in his environment. Bandura’s hypothesis was adult actions function as the subtle stimuli that guide children as to what is appropriate behavior, just as in operant conditioning, punishments for certain kinds of behavior result in the individual avoiding those stimuli that generate such behavior. For example, Gelles (1983) has applied the principles of operant conditioning to spousal abuse and offers the view that the pleasurable rewards such as control, sexual gratification, etc that a husband receives by engaging in such behavior is likely to propagate it. However, operant conditioning was found to be relatively ineffective in generating desired behavioral patterns as far as sex research is concerned, since classical conditioning and counter conditioning appear to be more effective in sensitizing or desensitizing responses to sexual cues (Wolpe, 1958). Comparison of the two paradigms: Operant conditioning differs from the evolutionary paradigm in that it views behavioral patterns as being conditioned strictly by the results accruing from it; hence the anticipation of a favorable or unfavorable response is likely to be the driving factor that will shape behavior and learning patterns in individuals. However, an evolutionary perspective incorporates the impact of environmental context as it shapes human behavior. While Operant conditioning focuses on present behavior, an environmental perspective takes into account evolutionary biology and an ever changing social environment. The operant conditioning paradigm offers the conclusion that human behavior can be understood and modified in accordance with the rewards/punishments that are administered; therefore the element of control lies in the kind of reward and the response times, which will help to explain the origins of such behavior. This paradigm may also serve to explain why certain behavior and response patterns are more commonly adopted. The individuals who are smarter and are able to learn faster are the ones who are likely to survive in a harsh environment, therefore this approach also supports the notion of survival f the fittest. The environmental perspective is however much more broad. This approach suggests that the study of human behavior cannot be undertaken from a fixed point of view, rather any intelligent study must take into account the evolutionary patterns of the ethnic/racial group and the competition that exists among various groups for limited resources in the environment. Yet, this approach does not propagate the survival of the fittest, rather it suggests that the kind of environment will determine the kind of species that is genetically and environmentally adapted to survive in that environment. Moreover, such survival and behavioral patterns are also likely to change over time, therefore no accurate assumptions can be made about human behavior, neither can human behavior be controlled without understanding that the learning process is shaped not only by the present environment but also in the context of the changes in environment. One of the limitations of the environmental approach is the conflict between culture and nature. Evolutionary psychologists may have the tendency to confuse social norms existing at a particular time with facts of nature, thereby making value judgments that may be based upon a simplistic interpretation of complexities arising out of the interaction of social and cultural norms with nature. Therefore operant conditioning is limited in its approach, while the environmental paradigm is more broad based and does not restrict itself to a particular time frame or a fixed set of responses. However, the evolutionary approach, unless properly applied, may also result in oversimplification, just like the operant conditioning approach. The better paradigm: Human behavioral and learning patterns are complex and varied and there could be many forces shaping the reaction of an individual with the forces of his or her environment. In the modern age where globalization has produced a mix of cultures and ethnicities, it has become even more difficult to reliably predict or influence individual behavioral patterns. There are constant changes in man’s progress in his environment, therefore any paradigm of psychology that attempts to explain human interaction and patterns of behavior and learning, must take into account the changing context of the environment that an individual is placed in. According to Reich (1972:xvii), “every social organization produces those character structures which it needs for its preservation.” On this basis, therefore, it may reliably be assumed that such structures are likely to change as the forces shaping the environment are subjected to change. Hence, the impact of culture as a determinant of human interaction cannot be ignored or underplayed. Thus, the prejudgment that is made by the operant conditioning approach, i.e, that human behavior can be explained by its consequences, appears limited when taking into consideration the complexity of a changing environment. The evolutionary approach however questions what the evolutionary adaptation to a particular environment was and what the features were that impelled such evolutionary developments. It takes into account, a much larger sphere of stimuli in making its judgments about behavior, as opposed to operant conditioning, where the success of the approach lies to a large extent in limiting the responses and stimuli to such that can be tested through repeated occurrence. The broad time frame offered by the evolutionary paradigm appears to offer much more scope than the limited time frame existing under the operant conditioning paradigm. Moreover, what must also be considered is that behavioral patterns and responses to the same set of stimuli may be different at different times, or with different groups of people. Within an environment that is constantly changing; where the social structures are constantly being reorganized to suit the changing needs of different controlling elements, the approach to the study of human behavior must be flexible without any preconditioned notions, since this could restrict and limit the accuracy of conclusions drawn on the basis of such study. Therefore, the evolutionary paradigm appears much better suited to be used as the standard paradigm of psychology. References: * Bandura, A, 1969. “Principles of behavior modification” New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. * Fonagy, P, Gergely, G, Jurist, E and Target, M, 2000. “Affect regulation, Mentalizaiton and Development of the Self.” New York: Other Press * Gelles, R. J., 1983. “An exchange/social control theory”. IN D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.) “The dark side of families” CA: Sage, pp 182-192. * Montague, D. P., Magai C., Consedine, N. S. and Gillespie, M, 2003. “Attachment in African American and European American older adults: The roles of early life socialization and religiosity”. Attachment and Human Development, 5, pp 188-214. * Reich, Wilhelm, 1972. “Sex-Pol: Essays 1929-1934.” New York: Random House. * Skinner, B. E., 1986. “Some thoughts about the future. Journal of Exp. Anal. Behavior. 45:229-35 * Wolpe, J, 1958. “Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition”. CA: Stanford University Press. Read More